So it sounds like he's paying about £400 instead of £60. Not really all that bad. Though I'm still not sure it's worth 11 months of aggravation and £340 just to prove your innocence in a traffic violation.

fusillade762:So it sounds like he's paying about £400 instead of £60. Not really all that bad. Though I'm still not sure it's worth 11 months of aggravation and £340 just to prove your innocence in a traffic violation.

It might save him quite a bit more for not having insurance rates increased.

jehovahs witness protection:fusillade762: So it sounds like he's paying about £400 instead of £60. Not really all that bad. Though I'm still not sure it's worth 11 months of aggravation and £340 just to prove your innocence in a traffic violation.

It might save him quite a bit more for not having insurance rates increased.

fusillade762:jehovahs witness protection: fusillade762: So it sounds like he's paying about £400 instead of £60. Not really all that bad. Though I'm still not sure it's worth 11 months of aggravation and £340 just to prove your innocence in a traffic violation.

It might save him quite a bit more for not having insurance rates increased.

Ah, good call. Hadn't thought of that angle.

And if more people do it they may have to stop robbing people with fake tickets as their own legal fees will start to eat into the revenue.

I don't think you'd pay another $54/6 months for a single speeding ticket. If the rate increase was more than that, then this would be cheaper. Assuming tickets phase out in 5 years in Britain, obviously.

I don't think you'd pay another $54/6 months for a single speeding ticket. If the rate increase was more than that, then this would be cheaper. Assuming tickets phase out in 5 years in Britain, obviously.

Remember he is a taxi driver too. It could have other implications for his job and he probably already has more expensive insurance.

Yes this is dog:What's supposed to happen is that if you aren't speeding, you don't get a ticket.

I don't like speed cameras any more than anyone else, but they exist and I don't expect them to be infallible. A mistake was made and as soon as it was brought to the right people's attention, it was corrected. I don't see the outrage here.

CruiserTwelve:Yes this is dog: What's supposed to happen is that if you aren't speeding, you don't get a ticket.

I don't like speed cameras any more than anyone else, but they exist and I don't expect them to be infallible. A mistake was made and as soon as it was brought to the right people's attention, it was corrected. I don't see the outrage here.

The outrage here is that they should not exist if they cant be accurate to the POINT of infallibility. The technology simply cannot be trusted to make accurate accusations.

jehovahs witness protection:fusillade762: So it sounds like he's paying about £400 instead of £60. Not really all that bad. Though I'm still not sure it's worth 11 months of aggravation and £340 just to prove your innocence in a traffic violation.

It might save him quite a bit more for not having insurance rates increased.

That's what I came here to suggest. Perhaps he has priors and he would lose his insurance altogether. Who knows?

I sound fat:CruiserTwelve: Yes this is dog: What's supposed to happen is that if you aren't speeding, you don't get a ticket.

I don't like speed cameras any more than anyone else, but they exist and I don't expect them to be infallible. A mistake was made and as soon as it was brought to the right people's attention, it was corrected. I don't see the outrage here.

The outrage here is that they should not exist if they cant be accurate to the POINT of infallibility. The technology simply cannot be trusted to make accurate accusations.

No technology is "accurate to the point of infallibility". And human judgement is even worse. Should we therefore prosecute no crimes, ever?

Enigmamf:I sound fat: CruiserTwelve: Yes this is dog: What's supposed to happen is that if you aren't speeding, you don't get a ticket.

I don't like speed cameras any more than anyone else, but they exist and I don't expect them to be infallible. A mistake was made and as soon as it was brought to the right people's attention, it was corrected. I don't see the outrage here.

The outrage here is that they should not exist if they cant be accurate to the POINT of infallibility. The technology simply cannot be trusted to make accurate accusations.

No technology is "accurate to the point of infallibility". And human judgement is even worse. Should we therefore prosecute no crimes, ever?

No, but maybe our nanny-statist governments should be a little more careful about introducing technology that has the capacity to stuff up on such a frequent basis.

Governments love speed cameras because the vast majority of people just pay the fine and shut up, even if the fine was wrongly or stupidly issued, because high court costs (not to mention time off work) make it too expensive for most people to bother fighting over a ticket when the default position is guilty until proven innocent.

CruiserTwelve:Yes this is dog: What's supposed to happen is that if you aren't speeding, you don't get a ticket.

I don't like speed cameras any more than anyone else, but they exist and I don't expect them to be infallible. A mistake was made and as soon as it was brought to the right people's attention, it was corrected. I don't see the outrage here.

Of course you can't. That's your chosen mentality, proven time & time again.

-----

This man in TFA set a fine example of fighting for what is right, for the value of principles and how once again law enforcement blows dead dog dick. His children have learned a fine lesson from their father for he is a man of honor. Good on you, mate.

darth_shatner:Enigmamf: I sound fat: CruiserTwelve: Yes this is dog: What's supposed to happen is that if you aren't speeding, you don't get a ticket.

I don't like speed cameras any more than anyone else, but they exist and I don't expect them to be infallible. A mistake was made and as soon as it was brought to the right people's attention, it was corrected. I don't see the outrage here.

The outrage here is that they should not exist if they cant be accurate to the POINT of infallibility. The technology simply cannot be trusted to make accurate accusations.

No technology is "accurate to the point of infallibility". And human judgement is even worse. Should we therefore prosecute no crimes, ever?.

I don't like speed cameras any more than anyone else, but they exist and I don't expect them to be infallible. A mistake was made and as soon as it was brought to the right people's attention, it was corrected. I don't see the outrage here.

Unfortunately it cost the man a LOT of money for getting this resolved. That is the outrage. You must work for a governmental agency with that level of mentality.

Enigmamf:I sound fat: CruiserTwelve: Yes this is dog: What's supposed to happen is that if you aren't speeding, you don't get a ticket.

I don't like speed cameras any more than anyone else, but they exist and I don't expect them to be infallible. A mistake was made and as soon as it was brought to the right people's attention, it was corrected. I don't see the outrage here.

The outrage here is that they should not exist if they cant be accurate to the POINT of infallibility. The technology simply cannot be trusted to make accurate accusations.

No technology is "accurate to the point of infallibility". And human judgement is even worse. Should we therefore prosecute no crimes, ever?

Is the problem with the technology, or with farking cops who don't bother to calibrate the speed-cams regularly and correctly because revenues are up?

I sound fat:CruiserTwelve: Yes this is dog: What's supposed to happen is that if you aren't speeding, you don't get a ticket.

I don't like speed cameras any more than anyone else, but they exist and I don't expect them to be infallible. A mistake was made and as soon as it was brought to the right people's attention, it was corrected. I don't see the outrage here.

The outrage here is that they should not exist if they cant be accurate to the POINT of infallibility. The technology simply cannot be trusted to make accurate accusations.

Nor can people, so your argument also applies to the whole justice system.

Enigmamf:I sound fat: CruiserTwelve: Yes this is dog: What's supposed to happen is that if you aren't speeding, you don't get a ticket.

I don't like speed cameras any more than anyone else, but they exist and I don't expect them to be infallible. A mistake was made and as soon as it was brought to the right people's attention, it was corrected. I don't see the outrage here.

The outrage here is that they should not exist if they cant be accurate to the POINT of infallibility. The technology simply cannot be trusted to make accurate accusations.

No technology is "accurate to the point of infallibility". And human judgement is even worse. Should we therefore prosecute no crimes, ever?

While it is true that no technology is infallible, any technology used to prosecute a crime must be accurate enough to leave no reasonable doubt. This one man proving that the camera clocked him at 50+ when he was going 18mph casts doubt on all of the tickets posted by that camera.

Another example: if a person proves that the RADAR gun a cop was using was clocking incorrectly (say, GPS data verifying that he was doing 25 through that stretch of road, as opposed to 50) in a court of law, guess what verdict is going to come back for every other defendant that got a ticket that day from that cop.

First, police departments don't use speed cameras, city governments do. Most cops despise the things. Second, the cops did the right thing here. When they were made aware that the camera was wrong, they took immediate action to make it right.

Enigmamf:I sound fat: CruiserTwelve: Yes this is dog: What's supposed to happen is that if you aren't speeding, you don't get a ticket.

I don't like speed cameras any more than anyone else, but they exist and I don't expect them to be infallible. A mistake was made and as soon as it was brought to the right people's attention, it was corrected. I don't see the outrage here.

The outrage here is that they should not exist if they cant be accurate to the POINT of infallibility. The technology simply cannot be trusted to make accurate accusations.

No technology is "accurate to the point of infallibility". And human judgement is even worse. Should we therefore prosecute no crimes, ever?

That's why we have due process instead of automatically convicting them off of possibly flawed judgement. If we know the tech is flawed, shouldn't there be some sort of process, of more reasonable cost, in place to deal with it's errors justly & fairly?

CruiserTwelve:Yes this is dog: What's supposed to happen is that if you aren't speeding, you don't get a ticket.

I don't like speed cameras any more than anyone else, but they exist and I don't expect them to be infallible. A mistake was made and as soon as it was brought to the right people's attention, it was corrected. I don't see the outrage here.

Actually it was brough to the right peoples attention when he appealed last year. Not moments before the court case was set to begin. The right peopel ignored what he said until right before the court case which cost him money.

If you don't see how innocent people having to shell out money because traffic cameras and the systems used to enforce what they find are farked up is a problem, I can't help you.

pjc51:I sound fat: CruiserTwelve: Yes this is dog: What's supposed to happen is that if you aren't speeding, you don't get a ticket.

I don't like speed cameras any more than anyone else, but they exist and I don't expect them to be infallible. A mistake was made and as soon as it was brought to the right people's attention, it was corrected. I don't see the outrage here.

The outrage here is that they should not exist if they cant be accurate to the POINT of infallibility. The technology simply cannot be trusted to make accurate accusations.

Nor can people, so your argument also applies to the whole justice system.

The technology enables many times more tickets to be issued, and many times more mistakes.

They dropped the case before a judge could rule on it. It saved the camera makers or the police getting ruled against and a big fine applied. Typical tactics really. You lose the £60 but keep the revenue from the non challenges.

First, police departments don't use speed cameras, city governments do. Most cops despise the things. Second, the cops did the right thing here. When they were made aware that the camera was wrong, they took immediate action to make it right.

I don't think it was the cops, but the prosecutors who dropped the case.

I am not sure what immediate action they took to make sure it was right. Did they immediatly stop all tickets from that camera until they could find out what was wrong?

They took the bare minimum action to avoid beuing made a fool of in court.

Your chosen mentality is more than defending cops, it is excusing BS like this.

BarkingUnicorn:pjc51: I sound fat: CruiserTwelve: Yes this is dog: What's supposed to happen is that if you aren't speeding, you don't get a ticket.

I don't like speed cameras any more than anyone else, but they exist and I don't expect them to be infallible. A mistake was made and as soon as it was brought to the right people's attention, it was corrected. I don't see the outrage here.

The outrage here is that they should not exist if they cant be accurate to the POINT of infallibility. The technology simply cannot be trusted to make accurate accusations.

Nor can people, so your argument also applies to the whole justice system.

The technology enables many times more tickets to be issued, and many times more mistakes.

Five per cent error rate acceptable to you?

No, and I'm not saying that evidence from speed cameras shouldn't be questioned (that's why we have courts), but the specific figure you're citing there refers to 5 out of 83 sites tested from one camera manufacturer in one state, so is likely far higher than the error rate across all speed camera systems worldwide. I don't think "speed cameras actually generally work well here" is likely to make many headlines.

CruiserTwelve:Yes this is dog: What's supposed to happen is that if you aren't speeding, you don't get a ticket.

I don't like speed cameras any more than anyone else, but they exist and I don't expect them to be infallible. A mistake was made and as soon as it was brought to the right people's attention, it was corrected. I don't see the outrage here.

Firstly, either the cameras are working correctly, or they are not. If they are, then yes, I expect them to work within specified parameters. If they are not working, then I expect them to be promptly fixed.

Second, I guess you missed the part where, AFTER it was "brought to the right people's attention", "His battle dragged on for 11 months", before "it was corrected". - or is 11 months to correct a mistake obvious using "simple maths" reasonable to you?

BarkingUnicorn:pjc51: I sound fat: CruiserTwelve: Yes this is dog: What's supposed to happen is that if you aren't speeding, you don't get a ticket.

I don't like speed cameras any more than anyone else, but they exist and I don't expect them to be infallible. A mistake was made and as soon as it was brought to the right people's attention, it was corrected. I don't see the outrage here.

The outrage here is that they should not exist if they cant be accurate to the POINT of infallibility. The technology simply cannot be trusted to make accurate accusations.

Nor can people, so your argument also applies to the whole justice system.

The technology enables many times more tickets to be issued, and many times more mistakes.

Five per cent error rate acceptable to you?

Would five per cent error be acceptable if you were talking about executing prisoners on death row?

You're dealing with people's lives, not tolerances for a piece of manufacturing equipment. When one of these cameras farks up, it farks with a completely innocent person's life. One way or another, that person then has to pay the consequences for an offense they did not commit. Policies leading to that sort of occurance have no place in a civilized, free, society.